AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM versus Intel HD Graphics 530
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM and Intel HD Graphics 530 pour tous les caractéristiques connus dans les catégories suivants: Essentiel, Infos techniques, Sorties et ports de vidéo, Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences, Soutien API, Mémoire. Analyse du performance de référence des cartes vidéo: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 9 mois plus tard
- 2.1x plus de vitesse du noyau: 730 MHz versus 350 MHz
- 16x plus de pipelines: 384 versus 24
- Environ 49% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 599.0 gflops versus 403.2 gflops
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 304 versus 254
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 5684 versus 4397
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 23.777 versus 19.781
- 2.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 73.506 versus 30.177
- Environ 57% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1645 versus 1045
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2426 versus 2393
- Environ 57% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1645 versus 1045
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2426 versus 2393
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 30 June 2016 versus 1 September 2015 |
Vitesse du noyau | 730 MHz versus 350 MHz |
Pipelines | 384 versus 24 |
Performance á point flottant | 599.0 gflops versus 403.2 gflops |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 304 versus 254 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5684 versus 4397 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 23.777 versus 19.781 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 73.506 versus 30.177 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1645 versus 1045 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2426 versus 2393 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1645 versus 1045 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2426 versus 2393 |
Raisons pour considerer le Intel HD Graphics 530
- Environ 47% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1150 MHz versus 780 MHz
- Environ 35% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 25.2 GTexel / s versus 18.72 GTexel / s
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- 3.3x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 15 Watt versus 50 Watt
- 32x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 64 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 995 versus 896
- 2.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 30.747 versus 12.111
- Environ 31% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 330.464 versus 253.178
- Environ 49% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.804 versus 1.211
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3346 versus 1677
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3346 versus 1677
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse augmenté | 1150 MHz versus 780 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 25.2 GTexel / s versus 18.72 GTexel / s |
Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt versus 50 Watt |
Taille de mémore maximale | 64 GB versus 2 GB |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 995 versus 896 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 30.747 versus 12.111 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 330.464 versus 253.178 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.804 versus 1.211 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3346 versus 1677 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3346 versus 1677 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM
GPU 2: Intel HD Graphics 530
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Nom | AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM | Intel HD Graphics 530 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 896 | 995 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 304 | 254 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5684 | 4397 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 12.111 | 30.747 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 253.178 | 330.464 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.211 | 1.804 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 23.777 | 19.781 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 73.506 | 30.177 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1645 | 1045 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2426 | 2393 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1677 | 3346 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1645 | 1045 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2426 | 2393 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1677 | 3346 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 384 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM | Intel HD Graphics 530 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Generation 9.0 |
Nom de code | Oland | Skylake GT2 |
Date de sortie | 30 June 2016 | 1 September 2015 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1199 | 1248 |
Genre | Desktop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 780 MHz | 1150 MHz |
Vitesse du noyau | 730 MHz | 350 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 599.0 gflops | 403.2 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 14 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 24 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 18.72 GTexel / s | 25.2 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 15 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 1,040 million | 189 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x1 |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 12.0 (12_1) |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 2 GB | 64 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 28.8 GB / s | |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 64 / 128 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz | |
Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | DDR3L / LPDDR3 / LPDDR4 |
Mémoire partagé | 1 |